A look at the world from a sometimes sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, decidedly American male perspective. Lately, this blog has been mostly about gender issues, dating, marriage, divorce, sex, and parenting via analyzing talk radio, advice columns, news stories, religion, and pop culture in general. I often challenge common platitudes, arguments. and subcultural elements perpetuated by fellow Evangelicals, social conservatives. Read at your own risk.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Most men shouldn’t marry nor have children, so most boys should not be raised with the assumption that they will or should marry, and they definitely shouldn’t be raised with the assumption that they will have a lasting, happy marriage.

I realize there are religions out there that pretty much mandate people marry and try to have children. I can’t argue with every different religious organization that claims to have authority over your life. What I do know is that the Bible, taken as a whole and rightly divided, does not mandate you marry and have children. Don’t tell me contraception, tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies are wrong because they are are unnatural, as you accept artificial medical treatments, live in a home that has been constructed, and drink water and eat food that has been processed in some way.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

[Bumped up from 2010] I have a better relationship with my father than my three siblings. Part of the reason is that unlike them, I wasn't around when the worst of the divorce and related drama was taking place. I was at college. Speaking of college, I'm the only one that got a college degree. One of my siblings is likely get one eventually – in mid life. I don't expect the other two to even go back to college at all. My father and I have done work for the same organization in the past, and I know I remind him somewhat of himself. But three important reasons why my relationship is better with my father is that I take some initiative, I don't treat him like an ATM, and I don’t badmouth his wife.

There will probably be a dinner – homemade or otherwise – in honor of my father-in-law, even if it doesn’t happen on Father's Day.

I'm a father myself now, as you know if you've read other entries in this blog. I’m also the sole income earner in our home. As such, I’d rather not get purchased gifts for Father's Day. I mean, it was my money to begin with after all, and if I need it, I'll buy it. No, homemade gifts are good, and so are services.

Truly, I can't think of getting anything better for Father's Day than a hug from my kids.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

There are people who are in enduring, happy marriages who "met online". Granted, there aren't a lot, but that's because most people in general aren't in enduring, happy marriages. Yet the moment a female caller to the Dr. Laura Show says they met a guy online, the rest of the call is determined. That's because the hostess' biasagainst all things online kicks in (she has her reasons). She says she obtained bias confirmation (she doesn't put it in those words, but that's what it is) when she says "guys and articles" tell her guys go online for an easy lay.

Yes, many men do. But not all.

And men also go to bars and clubs and street festivals and a bunch of other places for easy lays.

But yes, some guys use dating and hookup services to, surprise, hookup. Some of the most effective tactics include going after all women whose pics attracted them and are in the area, regardless of whatever else her profile says. These guys aren't looking for general compatibility, just easy, no-strings-attached sex. This is one reason why women can be inundated with contacts from men. It's a numbers game. Guys throw as much against the wall as they can to get a little to stick.

But not all of the men online are looking for hookups. Especially with the more exclusive matchmaking services, the ones that take more time and money, there are men looking for a wife (because they think they can beat the odds or they are unaware of the odds or are masochists or losers who are desperate for a woman to take over for mommy).

My advice to women is that if they're really looking for a husband, they stick to the serious, more exclusive services (in addition to the old-fashioned ways of looking) and never assume that what the guy says about himself is actually true. This is just a way to establish contact. Like a guy you meet on the street, everything he says about himself could be a lie. Meet in a neutral, public place, and don't get sexual right away.

Just remember, though, ladies, if you do find a man who wants to get married: You will be sharing your life, home, and finances with a guy who is foolish enough to enter into contracts that have no guaranteed upside to him and horrendous risks and limitations.

I'm sure Dr. Laura gets calls from women in good marriages who met online, but that never comes up in the conversation because the calls are usually about things that are troubling them.

Dr. Laura has mentioned more than once that she'd been in talks to endorse and/or help facilitate an online matchmaking service, but she had so many requirements and restrictions that it would limit profitability so it wasn't a go.

The caller on yesterday's show did admit she got sexual right away with the guy she met online, so Dr. Laura again said "men used to have to pay" for that. Sigh.

Thursday, June 08, 2017

As I previously blogged, attorney Adam Michael Sacks would do the Tuesday "bonus" hour of the Tom Leykis Show, and for me, it was must-listen. Recently, that arrangement ended, and as far as I know, all Leykis has publicly said about it is a terse written statement indicating the involvement had ended. No reason was given.

Since Leykis' Internet-based audio talk show began (after the terrestrial broadcast corporate radio version had been off of the air for a few years and Leykis rode out the rest of his contract), Sacks would not only do that hour on Tuesdays, alternating between "criminal law" (mainly DUI and marijuana violations) and "family law" (mainly divorce, alimony, child support, and child custody), but he would be at listener parties and events and his ads would run throughout the show. And by his ads, I mean ads for his law practice that featured copy read by Leykis, and ads for becoming an advertiser with The New Normal (Leykis' businesses) as spoken by Sacks. Sacks and Leykis even talked on the show about work Sacks had done for Leykis, such as with traffic tickets and with getting a restraining order against a radio show host Leykis and/or Sacks have described as an obsessed fan. Finally, Sacks would often appear during other times on the show by calling in to answer questions and give advice to another caller.

Of course, listeners have speculated as to why Sacks and Leykis have parted ways. Leykis has had his staff go back and eliminate the Sacks bonus hours from the archive files available as podcasts to paid subscribers. To paraphrase Leykis, he did that because those hours were essentially infomercials. However, there was some entertaining and informative content to many of those hours.

What could the reason be for ending the professional relationship? I have no more insight than any other frequent listener who occasionally visits the show's Facebook page. I figure there are several basic plausible reasons, and it may be a combination of two or more of them. So in no particular order, let's consider them. Again, these are POSSIBLE reasons, I'm not stating that they ARE the reason(s).

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

As I've said on this blog over and over again, I love Dr. Laura and her media and mostly agree with her.

One of the areas where I have some questions about how she handles callers is when someone calls with concerns about the behavior of their minor child, and Dr. Laura starts off with questions to determine (as she often does with other concerns) whether or not the child is being raised in a married, intact home with their mother and father. If the caller was never married to the child's other parent, or is divorced, and especially if they are the stepparent or have a new spouse/partner, or the kid is in daycare, THAT is where the call stops, in the sense that Dr. Laura asserts THAT is the reason the child is acting out.

Really? She's not even going to bother to let the caller add that the kid was once run over by a bus, or was once kidnapped and beaten, or was hurt from medical malpractice?

It especially puts me on edge when the problem behavior described in the child is something like what my children are doing. My kids are being raised in a married, intact home by their biological parents. So clearly other things aside from divorce/never married/stepparent/daycare can prompt these behaviors, right?

Isn't it possible... possible... that whatever is causing the behavior in my children is also causing the behavior in the caller's child?

Now, I have to wonder if, in these cases, Dr. Laura feels the truth is less important than what she sees as the more important thing, which is eliminating or limiting the involvement of the new partner or spouse, or getting the kid out of daycare, or whatever, and communicating to the audience that kids need to be raised within their parents' marriage, by a parent. If that is her agenda, and the caller does what Dr. Laura recommends and the child still has the problem behavior, that will at least make the child better off. It just doesn't make anything easier for the parent or eliminate the problem behavior.

Men are expected to "provide". It isn't just traditionalists like Dr. Laura who say this. Most women seek out and marry men they think do, or will, earn more than they do, even if they claim to be liberated, feminist, independent. Notice Oprah's lack of legal marriage. It would he difficult for her to attract a man who earns more than her.

In order to pay for a family, men generally need stable, well-paying jobs that provide a reasonable level of security. However, our economy has changed.

Friday, June 02, 2017

"Refuse to date men use porn!" was tweeted out by one my favorite antiporn accounts.

First things first: Of course people can and should set any standards or requirements they think are best when it comes to who they'll date.

Two very important words in the tweet were "use" and "porn". What exactly are we talking about here? Is a guy who stares at artistic nudes once or twice per month or enjoys the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue just as out-of-the-question as a guy who is viewing hardcore videos 2-3 times per week? If so, there's going to be almost no man who passes this test. And "use" implies it is ongoing. Given how much we are told by antiporn activists that porn damages the brain, shouldn't men who used porn be out of consideration, too?

Welcome!

Warning: I am frank and blunt about my past, my current musings and sins, how the male mind works, and married sexuality - right or wrong.

Feel free to comment on my blog entries. I have chosen to require my approval on comments for two reasons: 1) To prevent libel and 2) To allow you to write me privately - which means if you DON'T want your comment published, say so in your comment. If you disagree with me, that won't keep me from publishing your comment. Differences of opinion are most welcome!

Also, I may or may not agree with the content found on my links. So don't blame me for what others are writing and saying.